Verifies the MCP-to-Premiere connector, open project, and active sequence before a session; if the connector is unresponsive while Premiere is open, check status and install it with user consent.
Read-only check: MCP ↔ Premiere connector ↔ open project ↔ active sequence. Call first in a session. Connector does not answer while Premiere is open → pr_install_connector (status, then install with the user's consent).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it declares the check read-only and discloses the important condition that the connector does not answer while Premiere is open. It also notes consent requirements for installation, though it does not describe timeout or return-status behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then immediately gives the usage rule and failure routing. The arrow notation is compact and every clause contributes useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what a successful verification returns or what failure criteria look like beyond the connector not answering. It is adequate for invocation but leaves output interpretation underspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a major concern. The description appropriately does not introduce parameter details where none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific read-only verification of the MCP-to-Premiere connector chain, including the open project and active sequence. It also distinguishes the failure path by naming pr_install_connector, making the tool's role clear against siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly says to call this first in a session and prescribes the alternative path when the connector does not answer: use pr_install_connector for status, then install with user consent. That is clear when-to-use and when-to-escalate guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.